Mark Lilla's "The Politics of God," from yesterday's New York Times Magazine, reflects the bafflement of the liberal intelligentsia in coming to terms with the worldwide revival of religion. Lilla is a respected political scientist at Columbia University, and his essay begins with all the pomposity of the secular liberal establishment. "We in the West are disturbed and confused...We find it incomprehensible that theological ideas still stir up messianic passions...We had assumed this was no longer possible...We were wrong."
Having discovered the obvious--that God is dead only in Manhattan--our campus Sherlock gives us a potted history of the religious wars. These wars culminated in what he terms the Great Separation. Yes, Lilla is genuflecting, as all approved New York Times pundits must, to the grand scheme of separation of church and state. "We have chosen to keep our politics unilluminated by divine revelation." Apparently Lilla has forgotten about the Declaration of Independence, which traces the source of our inalienable rights to none other than "the Creator." The doctrine that "all men are created equal" is derived from the theological concept that we are all equal in the eyes of God.
Nowhere does Lilla confront the obvious problem that his Great Separation is not even close to what the American founders had in mind. Even Jefferson, the least religious of the founders who first used the "wall of separation" phrase in a letter, permitted a far more public role for religion than we have today. Although Lincoln was not a conventionally religious man, his speeches were full of ruminations about divine providence and about God's active role in shaping the destiny of America. Lilla may disagree with the founders and with Lincoln, but he pretends like they were aberrations in some grand narrative of liberal enlightenment. He neglects to point out that today's Great Separation is a product of a series of Supreme Court decisions starting in the 1940s.
Consequently when Lilla accurately diagnoses "the revival of political theology in the modern West," he is not (as he thinks) identifying a rebellion against modernity or America or any of that. He is identifying merely a revolt against the extreme secularism that has captured academia and the courts in the past few decades. This extreme secularism has given atheists and unbelievers full control of the public square on the specious grounds that unbelief is politically safer than belief. As I will show in my forthcoming book What's So Great About Christianity, the ideologies of unbelief have littered the world with more corpses in a few decades than all the religions have managed over millennia. Isn't it time to stop crying over three-hundred year old denominational conflicts that occurred on another continent, not here in America?
Lilla's article contains one worthwhile insight. He recognizes that Islam is better tamed by traditional Muslims like Tariq Ramadan than by secular liberals who have little or no influence in Islamic countries. Otherwise he can do no better than end on a note of liberal self-congratulation. "All we have is our own lucidity," he writes without a trace of irony. "We have wagered that it is wiser to beware the forces unleashed by the Bible's messianic prose than to try exploiting them for the public good." Put this way, I don't really disagree. But who is this "we" that Lilla keeps referring to? I suspect this is academia talking to academia, Manhattan liberals cheering up other Manhattan liberals. I hope the Supreme Court discovers that it is also wise to beware the revisionist doctrines of secular pundits like Lilla.
Reader Comments ( Page 8 of 8)
106. Dishen D'Sleazy spews: "Apparently Lilla has forgotten about the Declaration of Independence, which traces the source of our inalienable rights to none other than "the Creator." " A load of bull$h!t. The source of our rights is, and remains, the Constitution, which reads, in part:
"WE THE PEOPLE.... do ordain and establish this Constitution...."
No "gods", no spooks, pixies, will o'the wisps, or ANY SUPERNATURAL INFLUENCE. It's "WE THE PEOPLE". It's so clear even a Christian should be able to understand it.
As far as that "Creator" crap, it remains to be seen whether a double helix of deoxyribonucleic acid is capable of bestowing rights or privileges.
Ken Berg - While Ben Franklin may have suggested daily prayer during the drafting of the Constitution, most people who mention this fail to follow up with the fact that Franklin's proposal was flat out rejected.
Lowell at 3:16AM on Aug 25th 2007
107. Knight_of_BAAWA:
I have been reading your comments throughout this thread.
I found your comments about original sin very helpful. Your position on original sin sounds identical to mine, but more concisely and elegantly stated.
Your continued reminders that you do not sin, nor suffer from pain, loneliness, and all the other ills that people try to ascribe to you because you're not Christian help me to remember that reality is far brighter and nowhere near as scary, whether in this world or the next, as lots of fundies would have you think.
BTW, what does BAAWA stand for, anyway?
BTW, kudos also to not marginalized for hir thoughtful comments as well. You are a voice of moderation in this debate.
Jenny at 12:02AM on Aug 26th 2007
108. This reactionary quibbling, so funny and sad
Can't we just drop it, would that be so bad?
Me thinks everybody needs to break free from simple dualisms and animal reflexes and just say "I don't know"...seems to me this is the only honest response when it comes to ambiguous, unprovable things...saying you KNOW when NOBODY REALLY KNOWS puts one on a pedastal and yeah, we all need to feel important, but how about we feel important cause of the things we do not the beliefs we hold...let's overcome pettiness and move forward as a species..
Samsara at 9:34PM on Aug 26th 2007
109. Re-post: But to D'Souza'a point, I happened to catch Larry King's show last night and he was inverviewing Christina Kalampour (bad spelling on last name). She was excitedly reporting about how she and other media reporters had recently noticed that across this tired old world, in general, most of the public believes in God, or at least is interested in religion and/or religious philosophy.
It was laughable because she and other reporters who chimed in seemed to be both amazed and a bit startled by it all. Just think, the unwashed masses do not agree entirely with the usually just tedious or nonsensical but benign, and occasionally truly malevolent and heartless secular humanistic clap trap that various shades of leftists have been trying to push down our throats since the last half of the twentieth century.
Amazingly to Christina and others on the show, we (the public) actually think about things bigger than ourselves, and we ponder the answers to great human questions, and we think about the Divine, and do not want ourselves, our children, or our societies to mutely follow the atheistic secularists over the cliff and into a pit of madness like sheep to a slaughter.
¡Aye Carumba - It is amazing how uppity the public can be sometimes!
Ken Berg at 10:54AM on Aug 27th 2007
110. Despite what secularists say, this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian tradition. Indeed, much has been written on the subject, of which the following are but two small examples:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006409.jpg
IV. Religion and the Congress of the Confederation, 1774-89
The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity.
Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war. Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people. This agreement stipulated that they "should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears." Wars and revolutions were, accordingly, considered afflictions, as divine punishments for sin, from which a nation could rescue itself by repentance and reformation.
The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the "public prosperity" of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a "spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens," Congress declared to the American people, would "make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people."
This book sheds a new light on a complicated man, a man who said and believed: "I have felt His hand upon me in great trials."
And,
http://www.ccel.us/trueblood1.toc.html
Trueblood traces Abraham Lincoln's growth from Illinois lawyer to world statesman primarily by the depth of his thinking.
Elton Trueblood sees Lincoln as a man who accepted the basic philosophy of our founding fathers, including the idea of a special destiny for America. A man who loved his country devoutly and believed that it had been brought into existence for a purpose, and that purpose had something to do with the ultimate welfare of mankind. Trueblood also sees Lincoln as a man who despite this goal was sufficiently acquainted with human failure to know that progress is never easy, never certain. Lincoln's only certainty lay in his conviction that God would never cease to call America to her true service, not only for her sake, but for the sake of the world.
Elton Trueblood gives us a collection of revealing anecdotes from Lincoln's personal, family, and spiritual life. We see the important role that the Bible and prayer played for him and the direct influence it had on much of his writing and speeches.
Lincoln, says the author, looked at slavery in a broader, theological context, and through Trueblood's use of historical material we are able to understand the sometimes baffling statements of Lincoln's political attitudes. For as President Lincoln said: "It is a momentous thing to be the instrument, under Providence, of the liberation of a race."
No matter how far away from our founding principles some would like to take us, and no matter how much they dislike it, while we tolerate many other religions, the fact of the matter is our culture was then and is now predominently under the Judeo-Christian tradition, and one could post miles of these sorts of web links to substantiate the point.
Ken Berg at 11:05AM on Aug 27th 2007
111. Jenny,
Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate them. As to your query about BAAWA, it stands for Bad Ass Atheists With Attitude.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 11:43AM on Aug 27th 2007
112. Thanks for clarifying your acronym Knight - I thought is was your effort to imitate a bawling baby - like "Bwahhwahh!"
Ken Berg at 1:00PM on Aug 27th 2007
113. No, that's the sound you make every time your idiotic cannibalistic death-cult is shown for the superstitious nonsense that it is, Ken.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 1:26PM on Aug 27th 2007
114. No its not - and you are the one who subcribes to a death cult. You are the one who supports and protects abortionists Knight; not I.
Ken Berg at 4:55PM on Aug 27th 2007
115. ¡El abortionista!
Ken Berg at 4:56PM on Aug 27th 2007
116. You are the one who worships the death of your god, Kenny. What the heck else do you call the crucifix but a homoerotic sadistic snuff icon? You worship death as well because that gets us out of this "veil of tears".
Knight_of_BAAWA at 5:23PM on Aug 27th 2007
117. Since you are so shockingly mistaken Knight, I looked up some information for you:
http://www.truecatholic.org/baltcont.htm
and;
http://www.truecatholic.org/baltp3.htm#Lesson27
Baltimore Cathechism; Lesson 7: From the Apostles Creed: "I believe ... in Jesus Christ, His only Son, Our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary ..."
77. Did God abandon man after Adam fell into sin?
God did not abandon man after Adam fell into sin, but promised to send into the world a Saviour to free man from his sins and to reopen to him the gates of heaven.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting. (John 3:16)
78. Who is the Saviour of all men?
The Saviour of all men is Jesus Christ.
For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all, bearing witness in his own time. (I Timothy 2:5-6)
79. What is the chief teaching of the Catholic Church about Jesus Christ?
The chief teaching of the Catholic Church about Jesus Christ is that He is God made man.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)
80. Why is Jesus Christ God?
Jesus Christ is God, because He is the only Son of God, having the same Divine nature as His Father.
And the high priest said to him, "I adjure thee by the living God that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God." Jesus said to him, "Thou has said it." (Matthew 26:63)
81. Why is Jesus Christ man?
Jesus Christ is man, because He is the son of the Blessed Virgin Mary and has a body and soul like ours.
82. Is Jesus Christ more than one Person?
No, Jesus Christ is only one Person; and that Person is the second Person of the Blessed Trinity.
83. How many natures has Jesus Christ?
Jesus Christ has two natures: the nature of God and the nature of man.
84. Was the Son of God always man?
The Son of God was not always man, but became man at the time of the Incarnation.
But when the fullness of time came, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, that he might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. (Galatians 4:4-5)
85. What is meant by the Incarnation?
By the Incarnation is meant that the Son of God, retaining His Divine nature, took to Himself a human nature, that is, a body and soul like ours.
The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee; and therefore the Holy One to be born shall be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:35)
86. How was the Son of God made man?
The Son of God was conceived and made man by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
87. When was the Son of God conceived and made man?
The Son of God was conceived and made man on Annunciation Day, the day on which the Angel Gabriel announced to the Blessed Virgin Mary that she was to be the Mother of God.
Pax Domini
Ken Berg at 7:14PM on Aug 27th 2007
118. I can't be mistaken, Kenny. Christians worship the death of their god (jesus) and do it with an icon (the crucifix). Further, an Early Church Father known as Augustine (you remember him from school, right) said that this life is nothing but a "veil of tears". There's also the fact that you believe the little wafer literally becomes the flesh of your dead god in your mouth (cannibalism via transubstantiation).
So how can I be mistaken, Kenny? I know the doctrine. That you're not used to hearing it put the way I put it doesn't make me wrong, Kenny.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 7:23PM on Aug 27th 2007
119. Per Knight in post 116. "I can't be mistaken, Kenny."
KB - How humble.
K - "Christians worship the death of their god (jesus) and do it with an icon (the crucifix)."
KB - After our fall from grace via the original sin of Adam & Eve, because God is Love, He sent His only son Jesus, who died for our sins, and because God is Life, He rose again on the third day (i.e. the death and resurrection of Jesus). We worship God via holy mass, recalling Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection and His words "Do this in memory of me."
K - "Further, an Early Church Father known as Augustine (you remember him from school, right) said that this life is nothing but a "veil of tears".
KB - Yes, Saint Augustine did say that. Human life is often full of suffering and ultimately death, but with God there is love, mercy, and eternal life.
K - "There's also the fact that you believe the little wafer literally becomes the flesh of your dead god in your mouth (cannibalism via transubstantiation)."
KB - First of all, God is not dead. Second, there is much more to trans-substantiation than your sophmoric statement indicates. I am not well enough educated in the faith to explain it properly, except to say that God can do anything, and if He says that is what happens at mass, then that is indeed what happens.
K - "So how can I be mistaken, Kenny?"
KB - Let me count the ways. First you are human and so indeed you Can be mistaken. Otherwise, you present a very low-level sophmoric and incorrect understanding of church doctrine, and from there jump to hysterically wrong conclusions.
K - "I know the doctrine."
KB - No, you obviously do not.
K - "That you're not used to hearing it put the way I put it doesn't make me wrong, Kenny."
KB - I am not objecting to your manner of presentation. I am simply saying your "understanding" is fundamentally incorrect.
Ken Berg at 10:40AM on Aug 28th 2007
120. Poor Kenny--all of his words, and he ends up proving me correct. He admits that christians worship the death of their god (if jesus is god and jesus died on the cross, then god died. Any attempt to backpedal out of that is blatant dishonesty), and utilize the crucifix as an icon. He admits to the transubstantiation doctrine. He admits that Augustine said what I said he said. So Kenny admits that I'm correct. That he doesn't like my take on it doesn't mean that I'm not correct; it merely means that Kenny doesn't like my take on it. But Kenny has conflated his dislike with being incorrect. Kenny should disabuse himself of that notion forthwith.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 3:31PM on Aug 28th 2007